re: Just when I thought American Airlines could not sink any lower...Child porn is 9yo's fault

(no message)

quote:

---

The attorney said the kid should have known. That’s a terrible not legitimate defense regardless of who filed.

---

I didn’t read the pleadings, but I’d be surprised if that’s how the affirmative defense was pled or worded. Defenses to tort claims are usually victim fault and fault of third parties. And those defenses, again, are usually pled by the lawyers out an abundance of caution on the front end so the defenses arent waived in the event discovery later shows either the plaintiff or third played played some role the accident or maybe, when it comes to the victim, maybe not mitigating his/her damages by following treatment that may have been recommended by a doctor.

Again, I know it sounds bad when applied to the specific facts of this case. But it happens every day in response claims filed every day because these affirmative defenses are primarily boilerplate.

quote:

---

But that fact does mean that at some age, perhaps 9, probably 14, certainly 34, the females should have recognized that an active and illuminated iPhone was taped to a toilet lid, and that it was not prudent to use that toilet.

---

And none of that matter for minors of any age—or anyone of any age—relative to the cause of action.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But that fact does mean that at some age, perhaps 9, probably 14, certainly 34, the females should have recognized that an active and illuminated iPhone was taped to a toilet lid, and that it was not prudent to use that toilet.

---

And none of that matter for minors of any age—or anyone of any age—relative to the cause of action.

---

Please explain to me like I'm 34, or perhaps 14, or better yet, 9, why it doesn't matter in a court of law.

quote:

---

And I've provided a very easy-to-understand counterargument detailing my reasonable yet intimate habits in public restrooms, and you've ignored it. Your quest is not one of truth

---

The question is not what you should have known based on the way you use a bathroom. The question is what a reasonable person should have known based upon the way a reasonable person uses a bathroom.

That's a question for the jury, and I don't think a jury would adopt your singular motion as the reasonable person standard.

quote:

---

Yes, I went to law school too

---

You have my sympathy.

quote:

---

The fact that, independently from the actual facts, came to legitimate conclusion lends itself to the fact that a reasonable person could, in fact, use a public restroom without noticing a taped iPhone

---

Okay, okay, okay.

I stipulate that it is possible for a person to use a toilet and not notice an iPhone taped to the toilet lid even with the iPhone light on.

But we don't have any facts to suggest that the plaintiffs in these cases used the toilet in the manner in which you use a toilet. Indeed, prior to this evening, I had never heard of anyone using a toilet in the manner in which you use a toilet.

The manner in which you use a toilet demonstrates willful ignorance of the appearance of the toilet lid, and more importantly, the appearance of the toilet seat. Don't you check to see if someone was grossly negligent in their use of the toilet? I don't want to sit on a damp or soiled toilet seat. I always check to see if the seat needs minor maintenance or whether perhaps, it is in such a bad condition that I should select a different stall or bathroom altogether.

I trust that you do check the inventory of toilet paper before dropping your bottom on the seat. Correct?

quote:

---

Please explain to me like I'm 34, or perhaps 14, or better yet, 9, why it doesn't matter in a court of law.

---

I am in my 40's. I would never think to look for a phone recording me on an airplane bathroom. I didn't do anything wrong, I am just using the restroom. My failure to sweep the storage closet restroom for video taps is not my problem.

You have a felon and you have young girls, who were videoed, in intimate situations, without consent.

quote:

---

I'd expect my lawyer to use whatever tactic he can to limit my exposure. I don't want him tossing out potentially good arguments because "that sounds too mean."

---

I would expect my lawyer to not get me additional negative headlines and my company as message board fodder

quote:

---

There is no doubt that this is is a heinous act by the flight attendant.

Would or should a 14 year old have known that the setup pictured above was an iPhone taped to a toilet lid? Probably. You can clearly see what appears to be an iPhone under the tape.

Accordingly, does that 14 year old have some responsibility to not just ignore the iPhone and use the bathroom anyway? Probably.

Would your answer change if it was a 9 year old?

Would or should a 9 year old have known that the setup pictured above was an iPhone taped to a toilet lid? Maybe. Probably?

At what age should a child know that the setup was an iPhone and not use that bathroom?

In any event, the issue of whether to raise that possible defense should have been discussed with AA by the attorney prior to filing the answer.

---

List any case where culpability was placed on a NINE YEAR old and raising this possible defense makes sense. As there are NONE to raise it is ignorance.